scholarly journals Safety Testing of Cosmetic Products: Overview of Established Methods and New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)

Cosmetics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Manon Barthe ◽  
Clarisse Bavoux ◽  
Francis Finot ◽  
Isabelle Mouche ◽  
Corina Cuceu-Petrenci ◽  
...  

Cosmetic products need to have a proven efficacy combined with a comprehensive toxicological assessment. Before the current Cosmetic regulation N°1223/2009, the 7th Amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive has banned animal testing for cosmetic products and for cosmetic ingredients in 2004 and 2009, respectively. An increasing number of alternatives to animal testing has been developed and validated for safety and efficacy testing of cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients. For example, 2D cell culture models derived from human skin can be used to evaluate anti-inflammatory properties, or to predict skin sensitization potential; 3D human skin equivalent models are used to evaluate skin irritation potential; and excised human skin is used as the gold standard for the evaluation of dermal absorption. The aim of this manuscript is to give an overview of the main in vitro and ex vivo alternative models used in the safety testing of cosmetic products with a focus on regulatory requirements, genotoxicity potential, skin sensitization potential, skin and eye irritation, endocrine properties, and dermal absorption. Advantages and limitations of each model in safety testing of cosmetic products are discussed and novel technologies capable of addressing these limitations are presented.

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Hajime Kojima ◽  
Tokio Nakada ◽  
Akiko Yagami ◽  
Hiroaki Todo ◽  
Jihei Nishimura ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 70S-83S
Author(s):  
Wilbur Johnson ◽  
Bart Heldreth ◽  
Wilma F. Bergfeld ◽  
Donald V. Belsito ◽  
Ronald A. Hill ◽  
...  

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel (Panel) reviewed the safety of alkyl polyethylene glycol (PEG) sulfosuccinates, which function in cosmetics mostly as surfactants/cleansing agents. Although these ingredients may cause ocular and skin irritation, dermal penetration is unlikely because of the substantial polarity and molecular size of these ingredients. The Panel considered the negative oral carcinogenicity and reproductive and developmental toxicity data on chemically related laureths (PEG lauryl ethers) and negative repeated dose toxicity and skin sensitization data on disodium laureth sulfosuccinate supported the safety of these alkyl PEG sulfosuccinates in cosmetic products, but. The CIR Expert Panel concluded that the alkyl PEG sulfosuccinates are safe in the present practices of use and concentration when formulated to be nonirritating.


1987 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-120 ◽  

Toluene has a wide variety of noncosmetic applications. However, the cosmetic use is limited to nail products at concentrations up to 50%. Toluene was practically nontoxic when given orally to rats; acute oral LD50 values ranged from 2.6 g/kg to 7.5 g/kg. Results of animal studies indicated that undiluted Toluene is a skin irritant. No skin irritation or sensitization was observed in subjects treated with cosmetic products containing 31-33% Toluene. No phototoxic or photoallergic reactions were noted in subjects treated with 25% or 30% Toluene. The sole cosmetic use of Toluene is in products intended to be applied directly to the nail; therefore, human skin exposure to this ingredient will be minimal under conditions of cosmetic use. On the basis of the available data and the limited user skin exposure from cosmetic products containing Toluene, it is concluded that this ingredient is safe for cosmetic use at the present practices of use and concentration.


2019 ◽  
Vol 93 (9) ◽  
pp. 2555-2564
Author(s):  
Nancy B. Hopf ◽  
Philipp Spring ◽  
Gregory Plateel ◽  
Aurelie Berthet

Cosmetics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuela Corsini ◽  
Valentina Galbiati

The majority of cosmetic products contain fragrances to make products more pleasant to the consumer, as we all like goods that smell nice. Unfortunately, contact allergy to fragrance compounds is among the most frequent findings in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. In order to revert this and to reduce contact allergy to cosmetics, it is imperative to improve safety assessment of cosmetic products for skin sensitization. In the era of animal ban for cosmetic ingredients, this represents a challenge. Luckily, in the last decades, substantial progress has been made in the understanding of the mechanism of chemical-induced contact allergy and several in vitro methods are available for hazard identification. The purpose of this manuscript is to explore the possibility of non-animal testing for quantitative risk assessment of fragrance-induced contact allergy, essential for cosmetic products, which cannot be tested on animals.


2020 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 104954
Author(s):  
S. Kilo ◽  
J. Wick ◽  
S. Mini Vijayan ◽  
T. Göen ◽  
R.E. Horch ◽  
...  

1983 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 101-124 ◽  

Propylene Glycol Stearates (PGS) are a mixture of the mono- and diesters of triple-pressed stearic acid and propylene glycol and are used in a wide variety of cosmetic products. Studies with 14C-labeled PGS show that it is readily metabolized following ingestion. In rats, the acute oral LD50 has been shown to be approximately 25.8 g/kg. The raw ingredient produced no significant dermal toxicity, skin irritation, or eye irritation in acute tests with rabbits. Subchronic animal studies produced no evidence of oral or dermal toxicity. Propylene glycol monostea-rate was negative in in vitro microbial assays for mutagenicity. In clinical studies, PGS produced no significant skin irritation at concentrations up to 55% nor skin sensitization on formulations containing 2.5%. Photo-contact allergenicity tests on product formulations containing 1.5% PGS were negative. From the available information, it is concluded that Propylene Glycol Stearates are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices of use.


2016 ◽  
Vol 248 ◽  
pp. 25-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathrin Dennerlein ◽  
Franklin Kiesewetter ◽  
Sonja Kilo ◽  
Thomas Jäger ◽  
Thomas Göen ◽  
...  

Pharmaceutics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominika Krenczkowska ◽  
Krystyna Mojsiewicz-Pieńkowska ◽  
Bartosz Wielgomas ◽  
Dagmara Bazar ◽  
Zbigniew Jankowski

Cyclic methylsiloxanes D4, D5, D6 (also called cyclic silicones) are widely used in various dermatological products and cosmetics, both for children and adults. As a result of their unique physicochemical properties, the production of cyclic methylsiloxanes has greatly increased over the last few years, which has resulted in increased exposure to mankind. The validated quantitative for gas chromatography-flame ionization detector (GC-FID) analysis with using the transdermal diffusion system with vertical Franz cells demonstrated that ex vivo human skin is not a barrier to cyclic siloxanes. D4, D5, and D6 have a specific affinity to stratum corneum (SC) (especially D6), and can even diffuse into the deeper layers of the skin (epidermis (E) and dermis (D)), or into the receptor fluid as well. An important achievement of this work was the observation of the characteristic ratio partitioning D4, D5, and D6 in skin layers and receptor fluid (RF). The studies have shown that, in order to thoroughly understand the mechanism, it is important to determine not only the differences in the amounts of cumulated doses in total in all skin layers and receptor fluid, but also the mutual ratios of analyte concentrations existing between matrices. For example, in the case of the stratum corneum, the cumulative doses of D4, D5, and D6 were 27.5, 63.9, and 67.2 µg/cm2/24 h, respectively, and in the epidermis, they were 6.9, 29.9, and 10.7 µg/cm2/24 h, respectively, which confirmed the highest affinity of D6 to stratum corneum as the amount diffused into the epidermis was 2.8 times smaller compared to D5. The calculated epidermis-to-stratum corneum ratios of analyte concentrations also confirm this. The largest ratio was identified for D5 (E/SC = 47), followed by D4 (E/SC = 25), and finally by D6 (E/SC = 16). The analysis of the next stage of diffusion from epidermis to dermis revealed that in dermis the highest cumulative dose was observed for D5 (13.9 µg/cm2/24 h), while the doses of D4 and D6 were similar (5.1 and 5.3 µg/cm2/24 h). Considering the concentration gradient, it can be concluded that the diffusion of D5 and D6 occurs at a similar level, while D4 diffuses at a much higher level. These observations were also confirmed by the dermis-to-epidermis concentration ratios. The final stage of diffusion from dermis to the receptor fluid indicated that D4 was able to permeate easily, while D5 exhibited a difficult diffusion and the diffusion of D6 was limited. The receptor fluid-to-dermis concentration ratios (RF/D) were calculated for D4, D5, and D6: 80, 53, and 17, respectively. Our results also revealed the increased risk of D4 and D5 absorption into the blood and lymphatic systems, whereas D6 demonstrated the lowest risk. Therefore, we can argue that, among the three tested compounds, D6 is the safest one that can be used in dermatological, cosmetic, and personal care products. This study demonstrates that the stratum corneum, epidermis, and dermis can be also considered reservoirs of cyclic methylsiloxanes. Therefore, these compounds can demonstrate potential long-term bioaccumulation, and can be absorbed to the bloodstream in a long-term and uncontrolled process.


2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 55-94 ◽  

The safety of 43 glyceryl monoesters listed as cosmetic ingredients was reviewed in a safety assessment completed in 2000. Additional safety test data pertaining to Glyceryl Rosinate and Glyceryl Hydrogenated Rosinate were received and served as the basis for this amended report. Glyceryl monoesters are used mostly as skin-conditioning agents—emollients and/or surfactant—emulsifying agents in cosmetics. The following 20 glyceryl monoesters are currently reported to be used in cosmetics: Glyceryl Laurate, Glyceryl Alginate, Glyceryl Arachidonate, Glyceryl Behenate, Glyceryl Caprylate, Glyceryl Caprylate/Caprate, Glyceryl Cocoate, Glyceryl Erucate, Glyceryl Hydroxystearate, Glyceryl Isostearate, Glyceryl Lanolate, Glyceryl Linoleate, Glyceryl Linolenate, Glyceryl Myristate, Glyceryl Oleate/Elaidate, Glyceryl Palmitate, Glyceryl Polyacrylate, Glyceryl Rosinate, Glyceryl Stearate/Acetate, and Glyceryl Undecylenate. Concentration of use data received from the cosmetics industry in 1999 indicate that Glyceryl Monoesters are used at concentrations up to 12 % in cosmetic products. Glyceryl Monoesters are not pure monoesters, but are mostly mixtures with mono-, di-, and tri-esters. The purity of commercial and conventional Monoglyceride (Glyceryl Monoester) is a minimum of 90%. Glyceryl Monoesters (monoglycerides) are metabolized to free fatty acids and glycerol, both of which are available for the resynthesis of triglycerides. Glyceryl Laurate enhanced the penetration of drugs through cadaverous skin and hairless rat skin in vitro and has been described as having a wide spectrum of antimicrobial activity. A low-grade irritant response was observed following inhalation of an aerosol containing 10% Glyceryl Laurate by test animals. Glyceryl monoesters have little acute or short-term toxicity in animals, and no toxicity was noted following chronic administration of a mixture consisting mostly of glyceryl di- and mono- esters. Glyceryl Laurate did have strong hemolytic activity in an in vitro assay using sheep erythrocytes. Glyceryl Laurate, Glyceryl Isostearate, or Glyceryl Citrate/Lactate/Linoleate/Oleate were not classified as ocular irritants in rabbits. Undiluted glyceryl monoesters may produce minor skin irritation, especially in abraded skin, but in general these ingredients are not irritating at concentrations used in cosmetics. Glyceryl monoesters are not sensitizers, except that Glyceryl Rosinate and Hydrogenated Glyceryl Rosinate may contain residual rosin, which can cause allergic reactions. These ingredients are not photosensitizers. Glyceryl Citrate/Lactate/Linoleate/Oleate was not mutagenic in the Ames test system. Glyceryl Laurate exhibited antitumor activity and Glyceryl Stearate was negative in a tumor promotion assay. At concentrations higher than used in cosmetics, Glyceryl Laurate did cause moderate erythema in human repeat-insult patch test (RIPT) studies, but the other glyceryl monoesters tested failed to produce any significant positive reactions. Glyceryl Rosinate was irritating to animal skin at 50%, but did not produce sensitization in clinical tests at concentrations up to 10% and covered with semioccluded patches. There is reported use of Glyceryl Rosinate at 12% in mascara, which is somewhat higher than the concentration in the clinical testing. It was reasoned that the available data do support the safety of this use because there would be minimal contact with the skin and no occlusion. The safety of Arachidonic Acid was not documented and substantiated for cosmetic product use in an earlier safety assessment and those same safety questions apply to Glyceryl Arachidonate. Based on these data, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel found that these glyceryl monoesters are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices of use and concentration: except that the available data are insufficient to support the safety of Glyceryl Arachidonate. Additional data needed to support the safety of Glyceryl Arachidonate include (1) dermal absorption data; and, based on the results of the absorption studies, there may be a need for (2) immunomodula-tory data; (3) carcinogenicity and photocarcinogenicity data; and (4) human irritation, sensitization, and photosensitization data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document